Monday, October 23, 2006

A friend has kindly allowed me to post the following explanation that they have previously published. I have decided to publish it here because (a) it summarises, succinctly, much of what my own observations and studies over the years have shown to be the case, and (b) it was part of an award-winning thesis on the psychopathology of delusional behaviours:-

Quote:

Initially, in evolutionary terms, it was due to ignorance - being unable to explain natural phenomena by natural means - and I dare say that still prevails in parts of the world where people are still primitive, in the anthropological sense of that word. However, as societies become less primitive, the real ‘engine’ of this desire to believe in a supernatural world is the psychopathology of the individual in question.

The word ‘psychopathology’ is used accurately, because belief in a god or gods fulfils the diagnosis and aetiology of psychosis, as described in the ‘Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases (TR IV)’.

Anyone who does not accept this fact has only to substitute the words “the Invisible Pink Unicorn” in their so-called ‘holy book’ in place of the name of their god, and then go around claiming that the IPU created the cosmos et al; they will rapidly find themselves incarcerated in an institution for the care of the mentally disturbed, even though they are saying and doing nothing other than any other theist does.

Furthermore, any psychiatrist will confirm that one of the most intractable mental illnesses to deal with is psychosis, which explains why most theists are totally resistant to rationality. Unfortunately, this means that often the only hope for those who are afflicted with this particular illness is long-term treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The only people who proclaim that they are theists who are not psychotics are those who are simply exploiting those who are! However, even they must take care; after years of pretending to believe in that irrational and unsubstantiatable nonsense, the chances are that they, in turn, will develop psychosis too!

Unquote.

Fortunately, Risperidone is a uniquely effective anti-psychotic used to great effect in dealing with delusional psychosis. Unfortunately, most psychotics do not want to take it of their own free will, so it has to be administered to them, often with some measure of compulsion.

Her comments, and the subsequent removal of them by the so-called xtians at 'Christian Aloud' show conclusively that most theists are neither capable nor willing to involve themselves with anyone capable or intelligent enough to be able to demolish their unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) claims!

Sunday, October 22, 2006

A correspondent has brought to my attention a risible and puerile article entitled, '6 Points To Remember When Debating An Atheist ' (which can be found on the 'Christian Outloud' site) . Essentially these points are:-

'Eventually you will be told that it is “Christians like you” that made them an atheist.'

'You will be called a hypocrite.'

'You will be told that you are “shoving” your beliefs down their throat.'

'You will be told that the atheist “lacks belief” not “disbelieves” in God.'(sic)

'Your statements will be mischaracterized.'(sic)

'You will be told you are being insulting, even when absolutely no insults have been issued.'

Naturally a number of atheists have posted comments rubbishing the article, which in turn are used as 'evidence' of the foregoing points by the original xtian poster, but the reply which really interested me was this one ( I post it in full here, before it is removed by the xtian webmaster from his site):-

Quote: "I have never said, ‘…it is “Christians [or Muslims, Jews, or any of the other 4,821 ‘faiths’ in the world] like you” that made [me] an atheist’, though I do admit to the fact that being of sound mind, with the ability to think rationally, able to construct validly logical arguments, and accept empiric scientific evidence are the reasons why I am an atheist. What’s more, I have never encountered a fellow atheist who would use such a puerile argument for being atheist when there is such overpowering reasons for being one.

As for believers being hypocrites, well that is self-evident and undeniably true, since the word refers to someone who is feigning to be better than one is or to be what one is not, since no believers of any faith show any respect for the faiths of others or, more importantly, respect for those (i.e. atheists) who do not believe in a supernatural force which allegedly created the cosmos.

As a dedicated anti-theist and misoclere, I react violently to believers of all descriptions since it is they who initiated the ’shoving of ideas down the throats of others’ - whether those others be of different faiths or none. Accordingly, I see it as my right and obligation to do my utmost to defend mankind from these people. However, whenever I contradict their dogma and/or invalid logical arguments which they claim ‘justify’ their belief in (their own particular) god, and even though I use irrefutable evidence and logic to do so, they ultimately resport to the childish response that I am somehow trying to force rationality on them. If there is something harmful in that, then every psychiatrist is wilfully trying to harm their patients.

I do not ‘lack belief’ in any one of the thousands of gods which have littered the human landscape over the millennia since these gods are simply the invention of the psychopathology and ignorance of those who believe in them. As a sane, rational, free-thinking human being, I have no need for such nonsense in my life.

Nor do I ‘mischaracterize’ the statements of believers, whatever the accuser means by this, since I rely exclusively on empiric evidence, rationality and cold-ineluctable logic to prove that their claims are spurious nonsense.

All believers are being insulting to me when they speak to me about their beliefs since they are implying that I am as mentally deranged and intellectually incapacitated as themselves. However, that is not sufficient for them, for they must also threaten me with the eternal punishment of their invented god for daring not to share in the psychopathic delusions that it exists. Whilst believers may consider that my speaking the truth to them is insulting, I do not.

In conclusion, the points put forward by this self-styled xtian are entirely spurious and without a shred of merit. Unsurprising, really, since neither the xtian poster, nor anyone else, has ever been able to produce a single shred of evidence that his alleged god exists, and neither have any of them been able to put forward a valid logical argument in support fo their claims."Unquote.

Will be interesting to see how our xtian psychopath reacts to that!

One thing's for sure - the response is unlikely to involve intelligent debate.

Or perhaps it will be just simply gratuitously offensive, like the claim by the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Sir Jonathan Sacks, when he proclaimed in The Times on 21st October that "...there are good reasons why God created atheists."

If that's not a perfect example of a believer 'shoving his belief down another person's throat', I don't know what is, and it is thoroughly and deliberately insulting!

So, here is the truth in simple words for those who could not be bothered to plough through the above: all who believe in a god or gods are either delusional psychopaths or frauds, swindlers, and exploiters of the weak and gullible whom they deliberately prey on!

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Meet Coatlicue, "The Mother of Gods", the Aztec goddess who gave birth to the moon, stars, and Huitzilopochtli, the god of the sun and war.

The word "Coatlicue" is Nahuatl for "the one with the skirt of serpents". She is referred to by the epithets "Mother Goddess of the Earth who gives birth to all celestial things."

She she was magically impregnated while still a virgin by a ball of feathers that fell on her while she was sweeping a temple. She gave birth to Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl. In a fit of wrath her four hundred children, who were encouraged by Coyolxauhqui (her daughter), decapitated her. The god Huitzilopochtli afterward emerged from Coatlicue's womb fully grown and girded for battle and killed many of his brothers and sisters, including decapitating Coyolxauhqui and throwing her head into the sky to become the Moon. In a variation of this legend, Huitzilopochtli himself is conceived by the ball-of-feathers incident and emerges from the womb in time to save his mother from harm.

One of the most striking features of the worhsip of Coatlicue and her kindred gods and godesses was that of human sacrifice - on one occasion alone over 80,000 humans were sacrificed over the course of 4 days for the dedication of a temple.

Nowadays, if I was to say that I worshipped Coatilcue as I consider her to be the most important god of all, greater even than Jayweh or Allah, and demanded the right to sacrifice humans to satiate her demands that she be recognised as the greatest god of all, I would rightly be classified as a dangerous psychopath and locked away in an institution for the incurably insane.

So why are Muslims who demand the extermination of those who do not share their beliefs about Allah or Muhammad not locked away?

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

BTW, these devout Muslims have committed haraam by posing for their photographs to be taken. Haraam is an act forbidden by Allah and is punished by him; it constitutes what in the Christian tradition is called a sin.

Funny how so-called religious people can dispense with the duties imposed on them by their so-called gods when it suits their other interests to do so.

Yet they all expect those who don't share their psychopathic delusion that their invented god exists to show them respect simply because they refuse to acknowledge reason!

Mind you, one has to be particularly careful speaking rationally to Muslims; they are likely to murder one for doing so.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Apparently the Pope has said that one should guard against the "cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom".

What the Pope really means is that rational people should not point out to the intellectually dishonest and mentally feeble who believe in a religion of one stripe or another that their entire 'faith' system is the fruit of their delusional psychopathology and that they are being manipulated by charlatans, liars and scoundrels who no more believe in the utter crap they espouse to their demented followers than I do.

And in saying this I do not "mock the sacred", as the Pope would have it, for the fact is that there is nothing to mock that is sacred since all religions are just a complete fabrication from beginning to end. This is why the fundamental doctrine of the purveyors of all religions is encompassed by the Latin term 'sacrifium intellectus', the sacrifice of the intellect - silencing the voice of reason in favour of blind faith.

True freedom comes from being able to determine for oneself what is a moral and decent way to live, and having the integrity, courage, independence and self-sufficiency to do so. This was, after all, part of the original message of the Cynics in the 3rd century BCE.